From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Mamedov Subject: Re: Performance question, RAID5 Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:15:33 +0500 Message-ID: <20110130171533.4c9e236b@natsu> References: <20110130094444.68288b0e@natsu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/0nfrZggSu1Z/NTmlEuQ9RUi"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mathias =?UTF-8?B?QnVyw6lu?= Cc: CoolCold , Linux-RAID List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/0nfrZggSu1Z/NTmlEuQ9RUi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:09:02 +0000 Mathias Bur=C3=A9n wrote: > Right, it's just that I don't want to destroy my data. I've ran a few > bonnie++ benchmarks with different mount options though. You can find > them here: http://stuff.dyndns.org/logs/bonnie_results.html > It actually looks like stripe=3D384 helped performance a bit. Currently > retrying the same mount options but with 32MB stripe cache instead of > 8MB. Be aware that it's not just 32MB of RAM, it's =20 "stripe_cache_size * 4096 (page size) * number of disks". In other words on 6 disks this stripe cache will consume 768 MB of RAM. --=20 With respect, Roman --Sig_/0nfrZggSu1Z/NTmlEuQ9RUi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk1FVmUACgkQTLKSvz+PZwjLqQCcCG1k2pJP5dBxc7QMb8skmKSf S1kAmweHTyf9pbjFhSZf81RHpEwCllFG =lNFz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/0nfrZggSu1Z/NTmlEuQ9RUi--